Thanks. The point in my eyes is, if you massacre, (or slaughter) people that implies that they were innocent, which would make the act evil. And I'd hate for the legitimate attacks on the aggressor to be seen as evil. Because they are not. Just my opinion.
Hopfgeist
joined 2 years ago
I would say they’re operating next to no aircraft in range of ATACMS.
They did at the time of the first ATACMS strikes, which was probably one reason why the delivery was kept secret until after the first ones had been used.
Thanks. I thought I heard Nasdarovye, which I knew in the context of "Cheers!" when drinking, I guess that's the "good health!" part.
Is there a transcript/translation available?
Parked aircraft are the most high-value tagets. It's perfect for (rather: against) those. But I'm not sure if any airfields in active use remain in range, I think the Russians have evacuated Berdyansk (maybe Luhansk, too) air base. I think the AFU currently only have ATACMS with cluster munitions, so it's no good against hardened infrastructure, only soft targets: concentrations of unarmoured vehicles and personnel.
Please don't call it massacre. That word is only used for the indiscriminate mass-killing of uninvolved civilians. These are combatants attacking a free country, they had it coming. So while bloody, it somehow puts it on a level with the atrocities committed by Hamas four weeks ago, and it definitely is not the same. Put another way, a massacre is never justified; attacking anyone who invaded your country, is.
Unless there is an actual offensive going on, these are not really needed. They are attack aircraft (short-range air-to-ground missiles and rockets, small bombs and cannons, etc.), not interceptors or aerial combat fighters. Their air-to-air capability is largely non-existent, and strictly defensive. Russia may use some in Syria, but Ukraine would be their main theatre at the moment.
Nice, one less to worry about. The Su-25 is not a fighter, though, but a ground attack aircraft, similar in role to the US A-10. Even more important to retire those.
Russian economy is beginning to ~~bugle~~ buckle under the pressure.
Otherwise that would be interesting to hear:
bugle, verb: 1. to sound a bugle; 2. to utter the characteristic rutting call of the bull elk
Joking aside, the Russian economy is effectively now a pure war economy. About 40% of government spending in 2023 was military. Not much else you can do, then. Economic growth, infrastructure, social security, whatever else the government spends money, is subordinate to the war efforts.
It is clear that that is what Ukraine currently has to do unless it wants to stop existing (with military spending having reached 44% of GPD, although most of it hasn't been paid for by Ukraine), but for Russia it is just absolutely bonkers.
They managed to adapt the Su-24 for Storm Shadow, no reason it couldn't be done for Taurus; they are of similar size and weight.
I think the compromise was that they need to be programmed on the ground, as the aircraft avionics don't offer a compatible complex interface, but a launch signal can be rigged. Since Both will probably be used against fixed targets (airfields, bridges, ...) that is not a big drawback. Still, it needs to be done, and is not quite trivial.
I like how the members are all captioned as "A Princely Warrior".